[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Hi again,
On 11/4/2011 11:46 AM, I wrote:
...
Another thing occurred to me. As Hank tells it, his current employer doesn't approve of XML not because it isn't a solution XYZ, but because it is not *seen* as a solution XYZ. Assuming this is actually what he said, I think this is revealing.
Charitably, one might suppose that this argument is made in view of meta-strategic considerations such as how hard it is to find expert developers given the dominant perceptions in the marketplace. (Yet he has an expert standing right in front of him to whom he is telling this.)
Uncharitably, one might suppose that he is not interested in whether the technology is effective at solving problems, but in how it is perceived. Maybe he's more concerned with being able to drop the currently sexy buzzwords at board meetings than he is with whether it actually works -- and taking on the burden of knowing enough about it that he can convince the board.
Technology is complicated, confusing and mysterious. But life is filled with mysteries. Ultimately it comes down to what you want to take responsibility for.
Re: [xsl] [possibly off topic] Adoption Rates and Future
Subject: Re: [xsl] [possibly off topic] Adoption Rates and Future From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 12:11:15 -0400 |
Hi again,
On 11/4/2011 11:46 AM, I wrote:
On 11/3/2011 2:19 AM, Hank Ratzesberger wrote:Anecdotal to list, apologies, but for me... I was told yesterday by my previous employer that he can't find anyone to maintain and XML application and today by my current employer that XML is not seen as the solution it was thought to be several years ago.
...
As for the current employer, this is a howling non sequitur. I agree that XML is not the solution it was thought to be several years ago. (Nor was it ever thought to be, by many of us.) But to go from this to "we're not going to do it" is like saying that because we have not yet cured cancer, medical science is useless.
Another thing occurred to me. As Hank tells it, his current employer doesn't approve of XML not because it isn't a solution XYZ, but because it is not *seen* as a solution XYZ. Assuming this is actually what he said, I think this is revealing.
Charitably, one might suppose that this argument is made in view of meta-strategic considerations such as how hard it is to find expert developers given the dominant perceptions in the marketplace. (Yet he has an expert standing right in front of him to whom he is telling this.)
Uncharitably, one might suppose that he is not interested in whether the technology is effective at solving problems, but in how it is perceived. Maybe he's more concerned with being able to drop the currently sexy buzzwords at board meetings than he is with whether it actually works -- and taking on the burden of knowing enough about it that he can convince the board.
Technology is complicated, confusing and mysterious. But life is filled with mysteries. Ultimately it comes down to what you want to take responsibility for.
Cheers, Wendell
-- ====================================================================== Wendell Piez mailto:wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [possibly off topic] Adop, Wendell Piez | Thread | Re: [xsl] [possibly off topic] Adop, Andrew Welch |
Re: [xsl] XPath which tests that an, Wendell Piez | Date | Re: [xsl] [possibly off topic] Adop, Andrew Welch |
Month |
Keywords